What if, in a fine morning, you learn, "There's nothing called God"!

Gods exist from 'god knows how many millenniums'. And they come to mankind as virtual beings time to time: promising heaven and hell and with sets of instructions to be followed - differing according to the religions they propose. We all, except for a few, are so dependent on them for our everyday life - trying to find a purpose of our existence, some meaning of what we call life. History is full of wars to establish 'the true god'. And, as of today, there's no sign that this will come to an end any time soon. So, we are born with a specific religion as our birth right and we fight till death trying to do --- what....

What if, in a fine morning, you come to learn that there is actually no entity such as 'god'. That, the concept is no more necessary to live a nice life on this earth...

Aug 3 2012:
Good question, Faisal. First for the funny answer. "No god? What's for breakfast?" Now for the explanation to show that the funny answer is also the serious answer. Just because there would be no god(s) would not negate the fact that we should live a good, productive life (take productive in whatever way you want, I consider productive more in the idea of work or working toward something). The inexistence of god would also not change morality. Even though it will exist universally, as it already does, the interpretation of what is moral will still relatively shift not only from culture to culture, but person to person. The biggest difference would be that if there was no god(s), people would have to own up to the wrong that they do (war, subjugation of set demographics, slavery, etc) rather than blaming either divine or infernal inspiration.

Aug 8 2012:
i'll make a comment on only one point: a non-existence may / will make people responsible for their own actions to themselves, a 'divinity' wont allow escape from reality and claim clear conscience.

Your logic is very faulty , it's not an wonder you seem to be an atheist !!!!

Why is your logic so ? because :
- you can't know if the existence of God change or not the morality ; maybe because of the existence of God we have now the morality we have , to say that "The inexistence of god would also not change morality" implies you know that the existence of God has no influence upon our morals , this is obviously not true . Even though you use the atheistic meaning of the word 'god' it's wrong to say that the existence of god had/has no influence upon our morals .

- our morals depend on cultures , that's right but it isn't an argument as you seem to want to be for your idea that "The inexistence of god would also not change morality" because gods are also part of the cultures .

Aug 15 2012:
Dear Jonathan,
I totally agree that the inexistence of god would not change morality. We have proof, simply observing our world, that the belief in god has not encouraged or increased moral behavior. In fact, some behaviors under the guise of religion/god have caused a great deal of harm in our world.

I also agree with you that the biggest difference may be that people might become more accountable and responsible for their behaviors, rather than blaming it on a god, and/or depending on a god to bail them out (confession) of immoral, inappropriate behaviors.

Eduard (E G)
Jonathan's logic is not faulty. You simply do not agree....try saying it that way. We've had plenty of years...centuries.... to witness the fact that a belief in a god DOES NOT necessarily change morals, and many times encourages behaviors that are abusive and violate the rights of others.

- if the belief in God encourages amoral behaviors (that's according to you) then wouldn't the inexistence of God make disappear this bad influence on people ? Then it changes the morality of the people .

Aug 15 2012:
Eduard,
Your comments are based on your thoughts, feelings, ideas, beliefs and opinions. My comments are based on my thoughts, feelings, ideas, beliefs and opinions. Neither are "faulty". We simply have different thoughts, feelings, ideas, beliefs and opinions about this topic. I will not go around with you in circles, as I have told you before.

Aug 2 2012:
Wishful thinking. That is the thinking that there is no God, and that humans will not be accountable for their actions here on earth.
That morning of discovery that there is no God, will never come.

Aug 2 2012:
I absolutly disagree with that statment. If there is an afterlife, who cares what your actions are here on Earth. If you can atone for your sins at the last minute and get into the good part of the afterlife vs where you really deserve to be then your actions here on earth become irrelevant.
If there is no afterlife and you are responsible for the world and how it will be left to your children (therefore assuming there will be no rapture where the chosen are taken and the rest of us are left), then perhaps you will be a little more interested in the economy, society and your fellow man and the bloody environment

Aug 3 2012:
Wishful thinking really? A mass murderer after his last meal of fried chicken and a coke can go down on his knees and repent and accept Jesus and hey presto bob's your uncle he's in heaven when he dies. Whereas the moral atheist or anyone of any other religion gets burned in a fiery hell for eternity for not bending their knee.
Wishful thinking is the idea of heaven, eternal judgement, retribution. Only because it consoles people that in heaven they may meet their child who died in a car crash etc etc. This is why heaven was created in human minds, to account for everything wrong with this world, it would all be corrected in the next. The eternal fear of death some people have.
Wishful thinking would be that Hitler is being burned alive right now, but he's not he's decomposed and you may have breathed in an atom which belonged to him.
And I may concede that it is wishful thinking that there is no god to an extent. I certainly don't hope there is someone so cruel and capricious and mean and evil and incompetent and lazy and indifferent towards their creations.
Anyway, I'd rather go to hell, I imagine it being a library full of books, with a big hearth and all the great thinkers of our time will be sitting their having a free open discussion on skepticism. That would be an eternity I wouldn't mind.

Aug 3 2012:
Feyisayo,
With all due respect, I do not believe in a god at this time, and I am very accountable and responsible for ALL my actions and how I live the life experience. I do not need the idea of a higher power watching over me to live with integrity. Is it God-like to believe that YOU have the "right" answer for all of us?

Comment deleted

Aug 3 2012:
Faisal,
Although I do not believe in a god at this time, I do not label myself because I feel that to be limiting. I am always open to possibilities. I TOTALLY agree..."none can have right answers for all", which is why I like to travel the life experience open minded/open hearted:>)

I would NEVER presume to "correct" you for being "wrong". That feels like taking the role of a righteous god, which I do not believe in!

Aug 3 2012:
you don't want to label yourself, which may limit you - no arguments. temporary labeling might be required sometimes, else u may find yourself alone is your own circle (though that may not make much difference for you). i, myself, sometimes feel like to be alone in some cases. so, the labeling matter need not be discussed anymore. you r right on your own right.

god, existent or not, is not required to differentiate between correct and wrong. humans, on their own, can do that always. but, human nature is such that those two words play major roles among interactions. some people will always act to keep those words balanced in a society (even if we can picture an atheist world some day in future).

and to be honest with Stewart, all my life, thinking about god or something like that, i can only find myself at the crossroads of hells. cause every religion asserts that the followers of the othe religions will go to hell. so, i dont mind to go to hell. though, i'll still prey to 'god' that the hell contains a library at least. and about meeting the great thinkers, i'll surely follow the way to the worst of all hells, cause that's the place i'll probably find most of them.

miss colleen, i'm an atheist too:, but never an accountant at all and responsible only when i think that i should be responsible for something -- i may have projected myself as someone little bit too careless, never mind pls. your last question can be posed to not only feyisayo, but to almost all believers alive on this beautiful planet we call earth - who surely will turn towards their own god to find an answer about the proper definition of 'right' and 'wrong' applicable for atheists and the like.

Aug 3 2012:
Faisal,
My previous comment was in response to your previous comment (which you deleted?), which started..."I'm an atheist too". As I stated above, I do not label myself because I believe labels to be limiting.

We have the ability as evolving humans to know in our hearts what is "right" and what is "wrong" for each of us as individuals. We also have the ability to understand what adversly impacts others. We all have the ability to take in information and make choices for ourselves. Nobody has the right to decide what we "should" or "should not" believe. I get tired of some folks telling me that if I do not believe as they do I will go to hell. That is simply arrogant.

Aug 3 2012:
sorry ma'am, the deletion was accidental, purely. however, the impact is not at all serious. i had to begin the answer again, cause i started wrongly.
at present i label myself to be an atheist, limiting though, but required. and i'm not sure that i'd like to want to delete the label someday....

ma'am, honestly, i'm on my way to a hell already. you'll find the reason if u kindly review the debate. its been discussed already. its not me alone, stewart gault is also with me.
arrogance is an expression of a certain mental state. my friends from university called my arrogant often. but i'm not gonna go with those people that you find arrogant around u. the word 'believe' alone makes some people around you arrogant because of its differing perceptions among people.

I don't mind being alone. Wherever I go, there I am, so it is best to be content with myself.....yes?

I think/feel that to be one of the challenges with religious fundamentalists/extremists. They don't like to be alone, so they try to pull us into their belief system? When I observe someone trying to convince me that s/he is "right" about what s/he believes, it appears to me that they are insecure in their own beliefs. They may become so dependant on those beliefs that they cannot imagine a life without them? If s/he wakes up one morning and discovers there is no god, everything they have invested in is changed. That must be frightening, do you think so?

I think/feel that if there IS a god, that will be interesting to find out. If there is no god, nothing is lost because my life does not revolve around god/no god.

I have read all of the debate Faisal, and if you are going to hell, I guess I'm going with you as well! LOL:>)

Aug 1 2012:
First, I would feel panic that my tether to reality had broken at the instant someone managed to prove a negative and thereby debased the laws of logic. Then I would come to my senses and realize the Universe is designed, controlled, and purposeful. Let God be true and every Man a liar.

Aug 1 2012:
The idea behind the phrase is not that every Man is a liar, but that if someone must speak untruth it will be man, never God. Did you post the question only to mock those who disagree with you and to share thumbs-up with those who agree? That is not the spirit of TED conversations, Mr. Habib. We should seek truth together, sir. Thank you!

Aug 2 2012:
Sir, it was not my intention to mock anyone or anything, it's a debate only, intended to seek the 'truth' together; same as your intention. but, if, the subject feels to anyone annoying or attacking personal beliefs -- it's a personal matter, and i don't disrespect anything personal to anyone.

Aug 3 2012:
Faisal,
You created an interesting topic, I have read all the comments as they were growing, and with all due respect, it seems to be your use of the word "liars" that might have taken the topic off track. That probably was not the best term to use:>(

Edward,
You actually DID honestly answer the topic question with your statement....
"First, I would feel panic that my tether to reality had broken......."

Then you wrote..."Let God be true and every Man a liar".

It is obvious that we all have different thoughts, feelings, ideas, opinions and beliefs regarding this topic. It is interesting how many would like to criticize others, rather than actually answer the question....how would this news impact YOU. I've noticed this happening whenever god comes into the question, here on TED, and that is unfortunate.

Aug 2 2012:
Faisal, this shows how little you have been told about, or know about God.

What if, in a fine morning, you learn, and it is proven to you, that God exists, would that turn your world upside down?

However, don't worry one second. Neither fine mornings will and can exist. No one will ever be able to prove to you (and God will not) anything spiritual. Nothing whatsoever.
If He would, why is there a Bible? or Koran? etc.

Aug 2 2012:
True, i know little about god. but i avoid the idea of being 'told and learn' without judging the source first.

until this morning, god exists; may be not for me but most of the people of the world. and the next morning with enough evidences of an existence i'd surly try to find a way out to converse with him/her personally: what took so long, so many dead bodies around the world and all other to find this perfect morning!

Sorry, u seem to be a fortune teller to me (no pun intended): predicting the next morning today! and, not everything require hard evidences, so waiting for that wont be a good use of our very short span of life time.

I'll ask u back your question: why a bible or a koran or a gita is required anyway? a complete set of instructions would be sufficient from the beginning, wouldn't it?

Aug 2 2012:
You show contempt for my beliefs and you ridicule God by your statement, ". . . creating liars to keep praising him all the time" yet you say you do not disrespect anything personal to anyone? You may not have intended to mock anyone, but contempt and ridicule are elements of mocking. Perhaps you could reword your comment to remove those elements and better state your opinion. Thank you, sir.

It starts with respect for another human being, and their beliefs are an intregal part of that and an understanding that this is a place for an extended hand, compassion and understanding. Without a personal comitment to such ideals this could dissove into a place no one wants to be.

When some of my children went to live and work in Saudi Arabia for a time, they lived with respect for the people there. No one could have convinced my daughter for example. ( who worked at the embassy and stayed with her eldest brother and his wife) to belive that she was inferior to some of the poorly educated and or bigoted men she met there but she wore an abya that she had no belief in and conformed to customs beause it was polite. I did not go because if some mullah had tried to hit me with a stick for accidently exposing my ankle, my kids knew that I might have hit that man- who i consider a coward= back.and then, my boys would have felt compelled to live out their values and we might all have ended up in Chop Chop square for there you do not get to simply express your own opinion even if you are certain you are righter. That won;t happen here and that is partially or foudationally because we all believe in being reasonable and kind to one another. If you go, you live by their rules. We are guests after all.

Aug 2 2012:
ok. you explained your point of being fair -- but how does it connect my posting! a personal commitment like believing in a 'god' does not compare with explaining fairness. fairness can be established without the need of a 'god'. its a human trait, evolving with civilization - lots of people r unfair throughout their lives and still pray to god for forgiveness: it may make you fell bad, but, that's hypocrisy. and pls don't take it personally, one should blame god for inclusion of that element in mankind cause it was he/her decision. if it is god who created human, then it's his/her responsibility to make sure i don't get any chance to cheat you by any means.
when you live in another country / culture, you must show respect to their ways of living, there's no argument about that at all. but it doesn't mean that the country / culture you r living in is practicing human rights the right way (i don't intend to point to any specific country / culture by that remark).
in africa, u still may find cannibals enjoying their lives, their way -- it doesn't make any sense at all, or does it!

Aug 2 2012:
Faisal,
--"I'll ask u back your question: why a bible or a koran or a gita is required anyway? a complete set of instructions would be sufficient from the beginning, wouldn't it?"--
Would the 10 Commandments be enough of a set?? :)

Why a Bible..? We need more than our own thoughts and emotions to determine who and what God is. We cannot construct Truth. That's why there is Revelation from the Source of life.

We were not created with our smart mind just to follow strict instructions, to follow a thin line like a puppet.
God created humans with a free will, so it is our choice to focus on, and like, either hell or heaven.

All Revelation is encouraging us to do the right and the loving things, so these become part of our character. We were created so we would end-up in heaven so God can make us very, very happy to eternity. BUT only if we want to.

For heaven, God needs two things to take place within us. Freedom and return.
Without freedom, love is impossible, so no one is forced to go to either hell or heaven. The choice is ours, totally. Sometimes we have to force ourselves, in freedom!! to love God.
Also, love needs to be returned (just like electricity) in order to work. If you loved someone who does not love you back, what good would your love do?? So God is asking us to return His love for us. Please!?!

To maintain our freedom and keep us human, nothing spiritual can ever be physically proven because that would take our freedom away.
This is another large story but 2000 years ago this human freedom was compromised by our evil side, and God came down to earth Himself to repair our human freedom, so we had the freedom of choice again.
Questions are encouraged because we cannot love and obey what we do not know or understand. Afteral we are humans.

Aug 2 2012:
we don't construct truth, we can only find them.
what if i tell you that god makes us greedy with promise of heaven!? (pls don't take it personally). probably that greed, taught by the old, makes us greedy in this world too...for money, power etc.
freedom is a practice, human in nature, and not needed to be learned from god. all animals also roam free in their own territories, don't they?
questions will always be there, cause we still don't totally understand even our own earth. that doesn't mean we don't love earth or living in it.
why should someone 'obey' some one else when he/she have free will, as long as that free will doesn't cause harm to others! Here, we must agree, we are all humans.

Aug 2 2012:
--"what if i tell you that god makes us greedy with promise of heaven!? "--
You can tell me anything.. but God does not make any human being anything. He just gives us the tools to be human. All we are is what WE choose to be. Otherwise He could send us to heaven or hell directly from birth.

--"freedom isb a practice, human in nature, and not needed to be learned from god. all animals also roam free in their own territories, don't they?"--
No they don't. All they have is instinct. They cannot love truth for truth's sake or love doing good for the sake of just doing good. (or love their enemies).

Got to go, sorry
-------------------
Added, we had visitors.

--"why should someone 'obey' some one else when he/she have free will, as long as that free will doesn't cause harm to others!"--
To obey someone to do the right, or loving thing, means we can do good things with an unselfish motive and learn to love a life like that. (that is basically the whole process of raising children).
Even if we do not physically harm others we may still harm ourselves. We are not going to heaven just because we never hurt anyone. We may not hurt someone because we're afraid to loose our job, our income, our prestige etc. If it is not based on a love for others, it is a selfish motive. And selfish people go to hell because they can only be 'happy' there.

Aug 4 2012:
>> You can tell me anything.. but God does not make any human being anything.

he/she put 'greed' in people, knowing that the 'design' of human being will make them vulnerable to the element in most of the cases - evident in human interactions. he/she makes only above average humans able to conquer 'greed'...

>> all animals also roam free in their own territories, don't they?"--
No they don't. All they have is instinct.

we evolved from animals and still didn't lose the 'instinct', instead, we added some more to it -- in total we developed what we call 'free will'. by roaming free, i didn't mean that animal manifest free will, but they do roam 'free' in their own territory.

for the visitor: raising children should make them able to decide on their own, with the best hope that they will use the learning process in a positive manner. there's no need to teach them to 'obey' without reasoning, that's slavery.

god will decide about heaven or hell, based upon one's whole life. if he/she sees some selfish motive actually paved way for a greater good, that selfish guy deserves heaven too...

Aug 5 2012:
You call yourself an atheist and then you write this??
--"he/she put 'greed' in people, knowing that the 'design' of human being will make them vulnerable to the element in most of the cases - evident in human interactions. he/she makes only above average humans able to conquer 'greed'... "--
--"god will decide about.."--
It is clear you do not know what atheists believe, or what humans can and cannot do (like add to our "instinct".. :) I find it amazing what you do believe, and what you decide not to believe.

--"thanks for the invitation, but no thanks."--
May I suggest you look for some philosophical books to read? Who knows, it may help.

Aug 2 2012:
I hear you, Obey. But doesn't proving that something does not exist require knowing EVERYTHING that does exist? Omniscience is not an attribute of mere mortals. As enticing as it is, proving something exists is an argument for another conversation. For now, just remove your shoe and kick a cement block with your bare foot. The excruciating pain and resulting medical bills prove the block exists! Kicking empty space does not prove cement blocks do not exist. Thank you!

Aug 2 2012:
Hi Edward. I suggest it depends on the subject of the claim. Also on how you frame the claim.

Most gods these days are invisible and immaterial. So can be neither proven or disproved.
Same issues for ghosts, demons, fairies, angels and any other form of immaterial or elusive thing humans have dreamed up.

But as the subject changes to something that can be more easily tested you can make prove or disprove negatives.

I can not claim for sure that there are no Tasmanian tigers. There might be a few living in the bush.

I'm more confident there are no T Rex's alive today on Earth. I could frame this to be more certain, because I can not see all of Earth. There are no T-Rexs in Central Sydney.

Positives and negatives for mundane claims can be reasonably proven or disproved:
I am not dead.
If I kick the tire my foot will not go through it. It will not be pain free experience. (your example)
I am not a US citizen.
I do not have 6 arms.
I will not float off into space if I let go of the chair
There is no dog in my living room.

All rely on our senses and interpretation, so are not absolute, but some can be demonstrated practically.

In regards to framing making a claim more testable.

I could probably claim there is no compelling physical evidence commonly available for that clearly demonstrates the existence of supernatural god X.

I can not say prayer does not work because I don't know everything.

I could probably claim prayer is no more effective than not praying for improved health outcomes after surgery in scientific studies.

Aug 2 2012:
To Obey: i posted a debate - not meaning i want / can prove anything....but if you can find something to prove in the whole debate, i'll give you the credit without any reservation... thanks.

To Mr. Long: with reference to my comments to mr. obey, i'm not poised to prove anything, i don't feel that's required for me to do it this way. True, omniscience can't be an attribute of a mere mortal; cause science, in its every branch, has progressed so much that only specialists can tell 'something' about a specific subject.
and sir, science has progressed so much that with some shoes you wont even feel that you really hit a concrete block very hard knowing you have really hit a concrete block -- what's the need for removing the shoe anyway! science gives us edges, to concur nature, to live with it in harmony and to go forward... in time and in conceptions and in....

Aug 2 2012:
I accept your thanks and respond with an equally genuine "You're welcome!" The block kicking experiment does not permit any form of high tech block-kicking shoes, barefoot only! I see you are a loyal supporter of science and an Atheist. As such I would like to know your personal answer to the question you have posted. Thank you sir!

Aug 4 2012:
Don, I do not intend to seem rude or insult you but you need to read into history a bit more. Yes I agree that it is people in government positions who create most wars, but religion has for all of human history been used to manipulate people. Here is a few examples.
* The crusades were started when Alexis 1 of the Byzantine Empire feared that his empire would be conquered by the Arabs. So he called on his ally Pope Urban II. The Pope then used the fact that Jerusalem was under the rule of the muslim "infidels" to convince the monarchs and warlords of christian europe to invade the Arabian Empire and try to retake the "holy land". The monarchs and warlords used the same message to inspire soldiers to enlist and to get peasants to be compliant even though they were being oppressed.
*More recently the KKK and many racist people in America baselessly used religion to justify their belief that they were more advanced and all around better than African Americans, the same tactic that was used by Adolf Hitler to justify the torture and massacre of millions of innocent civilians.

In all of these instances religion (namely Christianity) was used as an excuse for terrible and evil actions. So yes religion is not the reason wars start, but without religion some in fact most bloodshed would not be tolerated and would have been brought to a halt faster than it actually was. That is what I think Salim meant by his comment.

Aug 4 2012:
I agree that we decide whether or not to use religion to organize good and evil actions I was not branding religion as evil. I was just bringing up the point that religion has been used to justify universally evil acts throughout history.

Now with that being said, you made the point that historians often have views on certain times in history that vary. While this is true, the same argument can be made about religion which you use in your argument. There are dozens of different faiths and within each religion there are different sects. Christianity is a perfect example, the interpretation of The Holy Bible from a Catholic point of view and an Unitarian point of view are vastly different. So in my opinion the "stories" ,as you put it, of historians should have as much weight in an argument as the religious writings of any faith, especially "stories" that are considered by most historians and archeologists to be fact.

I also disagree with your statement that history does not "give us any instruction on how to solve todays problems." Take the marriage inequality in the USA as an example. Now you seem like a deeply religious person so you may disagree with me, but I think that marriage inequality is a great injustice and when I see the hate that radiates from people who are against marriage equality I can't help but be reminded of the hate that radiated from the racist Americans who opposed racial equality. So my arguement is that we can draw from history in instances like this to realize that those who are against marriage equality now, will probably be on the wrong side of history and will later be thought of as one of the things that the USA has to be deeply ashamed of, much like we are ashamed of the racist actions and demonstrations that took place in the mid-20th century.

Finally, while I do have the deepest respect for my elders, I must ask that you show the same respect for me. Also, honoring your elders does not mean accepting everything they say as true.

Aug 18 2012:
Going to add my small 2 cents.
When something goes wrong in my life-I look in the mirror & point my finger at me. Same goes when things go right. Do I believe something(s) great created the whole universe & beyond? Yes! But no idea what or whom.
My knowledge only goes so far, but I do try to use what I have with wisdom (it works once in awhile).
Is there more after I kick the old bucket? My belief says I go to a higher plain- I hope so.
I was born into the Methodist faith but after many years of searching became Buddhist.
There are times when I want to tear up my human card & go live with the other animals in the woods because of what humans do to others in the name of religion.
I will not live to see the many great changes that are coming but can only hope more compassion is on the world plate.
Going to add the word "greed" here along with beggers.

Aug 18 2012:
sir, thank you for the addition: greed with beggars. i hope someone else add some more to those two, there should be some more to add.
a mirror in your mind will always get you the right picture on the spot. you don't have to worry about looking back and waste time.
I don't find any necessity of an almighty for the creation we are in. as you turned to Buddhist from Methodist, and you still have the feeling of tearing up the human card, impossible anyway, it's better to go back to the necessity of religions in human progression. i hope i could pose my point correctly.
we have a common point, we both feel that we have limited knowledge. wisdom is quality that only above average human can develop. because, u r wise only when other say/find you to act wisely.
about living to see changes, i sometime wish that i was born after at least 100 yrs from now. life is so short and usually great changes take so long a time to flourish, so a birth after 100 yrs from now would certainly allowed me to read about those changes in history books and think forward. i wish to imagine, what changes will be found in history books 1000 yrs from now, but, i am an average human only with limited knowledge - stark reality.
more compassion -- we can certainly hope, because, hopes give people will to fight to continue to live. but human nature, as we see, do have the power to destroy all hopes. So, time will tell the rest... we r playing our roles as we see fit for us, time will decide along with human collective intelligence, who'll succeed and who'll fail...
i hope u didn't throw those 2 cents to water, but if u find it to be so, i am truly sorry.

Aug 18 2012:
Putting my 2 cents in means: I am adding my opinion(s), for what ever they are worth.
Being Buddhist, I have learned to show & feel more compassion for all living things. I have always felt compassion for wildlife, now I am "trying " to do same for humans. It can be hard at times, I will admit, mainly due in part as to the way humans not only treat each other, but the total disregard for other living things.
But back to my 2 cents: If I threw them in water, it would make ripples, which would spread from shore to shore. And maybe, just maybe, make a difference.
By the way: I am a female.

Aug 18 2012:
those 2 cents are not worthless by any means, at least not to me.
doing something for an animal is somewhat easy, but doing something for a human is very difficult most of the times, because of 'human nature'. (that includes "mainly due in part as to the way humans not only treat each other, but the total disregard for other living things" along with others.)

well, ma'am, that ripple reached me, u rest assured.

I am a male, remarked in response to your last comment, cause, i just considered u to be a 'person' in general.

Aug 19 2012:
Dear Gale and Faisal,
Your opinions are both worth a LOT, and I believe the ripples you create do indeed make a difference in our world:>)

I agree that it is more enjoyable to love who and what appeares to be lovable, and it may be a challenge sometimes to love those who appear to NOT be lovable. How do we encourage and teach to show compassion to "all living things", if we do not walk our talk?

I find it helpful to seperate the person from the behavior. My mom always taught me to love the person, hate the behavior. Underneath behaviors that may not be acceptable or useful in our world, there is a person who is very much like us. A person who maybe would like to love and be loved and doesn't know how. A person who experiences many of the same thoughts, feelings and emotions as we do. A person with whom we share this earth. If we do not reach out to that person, how is s/he ever going to know the difference between behaviors that are not acceptable or useful to our global society, and those that are?

One reason I do not believe our world would be in chaos if we discovered there is no god, is I think/feel it may cause people to recognize each other, rather than depend on their very own god and religious dogma for guidence and protection.

Too many times, in our world, chaos and destruction has been done in the name of a god. Too many times, we (humans) seperate ourselves in the name of a god. I find it continually interesting that religious enthusiasts/extremists/fundamentalists say we are all one, and their god is loving, just before they kill people and destroy our earth in the name of their god.

As Shane insightfully said in another comment....how can we look forward to a heavenly experience in the next event, if we cannot create that here and now?

Aug 3 2012:
Good morning Don Wesley. Yes you are right and there is more to it. Thank you for not being silent and getting your message out in the appropriate forum for discussion as it will resonate but as you said sometimes the message gets lost in the echoes. I too am deeply inspired by all the sources that Einstein quoted and I remember his other quote. A genius is someone with a very narrow focus. It is in the application of the knowledge we already have that we will find the answers for what ails us. Finding the appropriate forum and vocabulary is really tiring but with appropriate energy, persistence and metaphors we will find the answers in the community voice. You are a star. You are a guiding light and don't you forget it.

Aug 3 2012:
Hello elizabeth,
my comment for you is simple. you have found your guiding light, that really feels good, cause so many of us are looking for a light for so long a time. I must congratulate Don for his actions and everything else.

Comment deleted

Aug 2 2012:
hi don, i feel honored that you joined the debate.
a belief should never be a laughing matter, that's ok, as long as someone can't prove it to be so....
about that special morning, i have already commented before, may be you didn't follow the whole conversation. so, for you again, your quoted statement proves you to be a fortune teller (no pun intended), which, probably your religion doesn't approve as the right path to follow.

i'm an atheist already. so, thanking you for your kind references, i'd like not to follow the links, cause, all of the religions existing in this world can direct one to so many references; references that talk about that specific religion only, producing nothing but that age old question: 'who's right then!?'

Comment deleted

Aug 3 2012:
thanks, but no thanks. i'm not one that seeks empathy or compassion. the word struggling in my profile encompasses many other elements along with difficulty -- which make the words 'empathy / compassion' useless for me, thanks for your kindness though.
reaching perfection is an asymptotic curve, so i always set a limit to it, as necessary.
parts combining into 'whole' is something not to be missed. fact is, not all possible 'whole's can stun with beauty, except for a very few. rare, because of its own nature.
learning and becoming skilled is a powerful way, but limiting it to get 'stunned with beauty' only might not be the appropriate way of employing the power it holds. there r so many ways to employ the power to make so many things work the right way, the only condition is trying to be as scientific as possible - that alone can make feel best at creation or a regular work day; without needing supervision of any 'supernatural'.
u r always welcome to disturb me or feel uncomfortable about being an atheist, it wont make any difference at all, never. and sometimes most uncomfortable ways are needed to accomplish something important, such as, a war fare, logical or otherwise. so, being comfortable is the least important factor when one decides to make a contribution really worth doing so...
a businessman thinks in terms of profit / loss rather than salary; though i'm not a business man yet and i have served a long time for 'salary', i prefer to think in terms of profit / loss.
not all of us want to do good. instead, there r a very few who really want to do good by heart. most of us (average human being) sell the idea of being 'good' for some reason, which, in most cases, is money. there r other things also for which people barter the image of being 'good'.
i'm sorry, i don't really want to be seen as doing good, as long as my logic says i'm not harming others for my personal benefits.
'...to be seen as doing good' - pure hypocrisy most people employ to cover 'bad'...

Aug 2 2012:
Don, I do not consider myself wise, I do not believe in 'the truth' and also I do not believe in a devil.

It is my freedom to choose the way of communication and if you don't like it, that's fine with me, as this is your freedom.

Different from you I would not give anyone a comment on his or hers writing style or written approach on a topic, as you did, because this is pretentious and could be taken as an insult. And actually, that's what it is.

At times I like a 'playful' use of words and Faisal's debate headline almost pushed me into this virtual breakfast scenery by this beautiful picture of a 'fine morning'. Is this to blame? I don't think so. It may not be liked by all readers, but this can not be my problem. Faisal himself joined into this picture and both of us exchanged our arguments and views in a positive way.

As no one is forcing anyone here to read through all comments, the solution to comments you don't like is quite simple - just skip them.

If I have offend your feelings on the topic of 'God' by framing my comment within a context which seems absurd to you (and i do not consider breakfast absurd) I can only say, that this was not my intention and I think if you read my lines again, you may understand what I mean by saying so.

Comment deleted

There is no doubt on my side that none of us is perfect and usually I am the first in the row to proof this statement right on a daily basis.

Also I appreciate feedback on my comments and as long as it is about my arguments, there is no need for anyone to tread careful on them. On the contraty, as I am already used to face harsh resistance from many sides which helps me to think even deeper into a subject.

But to me there is a difference of beeing harsh on my arguments and of 'getting personal'.

This is a line which I allow only a few and very close people to cross, and I think this is the same to all of us.

By what I read and therefore know about you, Don, I was already aware that the topic of god is of high importance to you. And I respect that as I respect any open minded believer.

But I do not, I can not honor your request to tread carefully on your beliefs if I am talking about the subject of god to other people than you. This would be censorship at its worst and I do not think that this was your wish or intention in your request.

So if I talk to Faisal or anybody else on this discussion forum about god or religion, it is not on me to watch your sentiments, it is on you only if you choose to follow this conversation or if you choose to join in.

If we ever meet on this topic again, the only thing I can do is trying not to cross your line and to get personal on your believes. But being agnostic, especially this topic proofed itself very tricky in the past to get a sense for those lines, so you may better stay away from me on this one.

And yes, I was assuming that your comment was not intended to insult me, and it didn't, but marking my ground became necessary.

Aug 2 2012:
Buddhists believe in the God inside of us; Hindus have many Gods; Christians, Jews and Muslims have the same God but different prophets; Australia's aboriginese believe in Dreamtime stories; Elvis Presley and Justin Bieber are worshiped by some whereas physicists believe in the Theory of Everything.

Within their believe systems these groups all have Gods that perfectly fit their needs and aspirations. Clearly, you can't expect a Christian to pray to Buddha or a Muslim to Elvis Presley: God's are right with their context; even the absence of God in Atheism works perfectly.

But, the atheist God, i.e. the non-God, doesn't work for Christians or Jews and trying to convince them of this will lead to discord. Neither will a Muslim accept the Dreamtime snake of creation. Why would you want to prove that your non-God is better? How will this enhance the lifes of of people that are perfectly happy in their society where they have their own philosophy of life that provides them with social guidance and aspiration?

The wars over Jerusalem were/are fought by people that want to protect or take back part of their cultural identity, including religious identity. Interestingly, Jews, Muslims and Christians may disagree about many things but they all agree that they have the same God and the same ancestry (Abraham).

I agree that religions have divided and still divide people to the point of violence. Other social differentiatiors such as race, wealth, geolocation, political belief system etc etc also divide people to the point of war. I simply don't see how the removal of God will change any of that and therefore why an atheist would want to evangelize his belief in the absense of God to save humanity?

Aug 2 2012:
If you are a believer, God exists and that fine morning will never occur. If you lose your beliefs, or never had them, God will never have existed for you and it is not likely to be a fine morning when you find out. The question of God's existence is so ill-defined that it won't be settled for a good while, and not here. I tend to agree with Edward Long that only existence of anything can be demonstrated and not the opposite.

Perhaps a more fundamental question than "does God exist", is, "does God exist for you?". This is a question that billions of people ask themselves and many struggle with the answer. The proposition "there is nothing called God" shows that you are one of them and any one responding to you, has asked this question before.

Aug 2 2012:
for a believer to predict future is 'probably' not the right path religions advise, so, a fine morning will never occur may not be a right approach for a believer to his/her religion.
i'm not a believer and am not waiting for that morning...'god doesn't exist for me'. but u see, an ill-defined existence has left so many battle scars in human history and promises more with more ferocity... settlement - required or not, when and where, is entirely a matter of collective human intelligence.
if existence can't be proven then it is all right to take for granted that non-existence is possible also.
the proposition i posted is not new, i agree, but there has to be an answer: when and where to find it is answered in the previous paragraph. the matter is not that whether the question has been asked before or how many times; what matters is, whether it's time to find an answer...
an answer is required, u may agree or not: it's already been too long a time mankind has been pursuing it, fought over it and vow to continue to keep fighting...
how do u see the future then....

Aug 2 2012:
The thing is, that I don't think that the specific answer matters to humanity as a whole. After 10'000 years of humans trying to work out what God is, they have come up with many answers that work for different societies. That fact alone makes God real to those societies, in the same way that the color red means aggression to some and prosperity to others. Can I prove that other than through statistics? No. Should I? No.

Is it time to find an answer to the "is there a God?" question? Of course and billions of people have done so and they have different conclusions and they are all correct. An atheist who "knows" that there is no God has come to that conclusion after asking a number of hard questions. The Christian who believes in Christ went through exactly the same process.

Linking violence to the existence of God is a surprising link. People who commit violence in the name of their deity do so because some other human told them to do so. ALL violence originates with individuals who have the power to unleash it. As an atheist, you know that. Removing God one fine morning won't change that. People simply go to war in the name of democracy, science, water or whatever subject will rally them because all wars and human strife are about power. Humanity is responsible for its own mess.

Aug 2 2012:
you have made your point, a specific god makes a specific society work, within themselves; but the concept of 'god' is not enough for the humanity as a whole - societies continue fighting to establish that 'their god' is right. and colors do mean different concepts in different places, but the concept of 'god' does mean the same for every society, someone to abide by with the promise of an everlasting heaven (it can manifest itself in any form depending on religious beliefs). do u feel like presenting some statistics on that matter!
not all conclusions can be correct, satisfying maybe, depending on a person's belief and life. A christian, a muslim, a jew, a hindu and an atheist and all others -- all have their own conclusions, but as said earlier, not all can be correct; else, referring to your figure, it wont have taken 10000 years to reach a common point and end violence in the name of god.
how many wars have been waged to claim jerusalem only! the link is surprising, obviously, isn't it? i wont ask you to spend time researching history to find similar wars around the world.
humanity invented the concept of god, to explain its own mess - power, money etc. just fueled those. a non-existence of 'god' will make mankind try thinking of new ways to explain the mess they create in the name of progress of civilization - they may come out with solutions that will eventually redesign the world and thus abolish 'war' from future dictionaries.

Aug 1 2012:
To me nothing, I'd be happy cause I'd have got something right but nothing would have changed for me.
But for others this would be the worst news they could ever hear. This belief gives people hope that there's a reason for everything, from pain and suffering to rainbows and galaxies. But the main core of their belief is the fear of death, many deny this fact but the largest part of religion is the immortality offered by it. It gives hope that there may be something else to death, that they may be reunited with loved ones etc etc. So to some people this news would probably ruin their lives.
O and after reading a few posts further down I'd instantly start campaigning that the religious stop the evil they do, from banning contraception to forced circumcisions and repressing women and homosexuals.

Aug 1 2012:
you r welcome.
So do i. true, so far there is/are no verifiable evidence(s). question remains though, why then all those wars will be allowed anyway! and, all the politics, money, brains etc. behind those?
existence produced dead bodies, all over the world, till today...
non-existence...! can it prove to be something else a little bit different?

We keep learning, every moment - new or otherwise. convincing requires a lot of reasoning though...

I absolutely agree with you, Faisal, that all the violence we see and face ever since could disprove the existence of a 'god' as many religions project him, her or it. Nature itself is violent, even without humans and the whole Universe is mostly violent for life as we know it.

But even though if it is as it seems, the whole mess does not prove the nonexistence of a god at all.
Because if it would by this argument, it would imply that a 'god' or 'creator' had to create a 'happy paradise' only if he, she or it does its 'magic', but why should that be?

To me this condition would have the same origin as the hope and the believe in a 'good god' itself and therefore does not count in my eyes as a valid proof in this matter.

I do not believe in a god but I can't disproof him, her or it either by what I see around me and whatever I think of. But that's ok and doesn't bother me at all... coffee? :o)

Aug 1 2012:
a cup of tea is the norm in Bangladesh, but one coffee is ok anyway.

>>I absolutely agree with you, Faisal, that all the violence we see and face ever since could disprove the existence of a 'god' as many religions project him, her or it.
== no arguments...

>> Nature itself is violent, even without humans and the whole Universe is mostly violent for life as we know it.
== Nature provided us with earth, didn't it? with promise of more earth like planets humans one day may reach and inhabit.

>>But even though if it is as it seems, the whole mess does not prove the nonexistence of a god at all.
== the mess doesn't prove an existence either.

>>Because if it would by this argument, it would imply that a 'god' or 'creator' had to create a 'happy paradise' only if he, she or it does its 'magic', but why should that be?
==magic or not, the creator (if any) created happy paradises where u reach only after death -- the only condition being, follow instructions provided, no matter where you find yourself, a slum or a palace. very easy for some and impossible for some else. and the answer to 'why should that be' can be something like this (u may disagree): it's a human invention in order to gain superiority over others in a society, such as the ancient priests of earlier civilizations who dictated even the ruler(s). more examples are on the pages of the evolution of human civilization.

>>To me this condition would have the same origin as the hope and the believe in a 'good god' itself and therefore does not count in my eyes as a valid proof in this matter.
==it's back to square one again, a supernatural existence determining destiny: 'good' or 'bad', it's about god again....

>>I do not believe in a god but I can't disproof him, her or it either by what I see around me and whatever I think of. But that's ok and doesn't bother me at all... coffee? :o)
==I don't believe in one either. there's no point in proof or disproof: can't state the point due to lack of answering space

Aug 10 2012:
I feel you guys are traped in a diplaced notion that the world's natural state is chaos. Just to straighten this item: chaos is a matter of perception. Like garbage, one man's chaos is another mans paradise. (If you object, then why would anarchists love anarchy so much?)

It seems to me that we only find nature to be "violent" because we can't tailor it to our personal tastes. Nature is 'x', we would perfer it to be 'y'. In the resistance nature provides during this transistion 'x to y', we find pain and suffering. Think of literally moving a mountain. As reasonably understood by seismology and shifting of techtonic plates, nature "willed" Mount Everest to be located in Tibet; but, I want a beauitful view of the Indian Ocean from Everst's peak. I hire countless men with shovels and excavators to begin the transplant. How many people do you think will be injured or die in this process?

In response to "There's no point in proof or disproof": no offense is intended by this, but simply because one can't prove something is or is not true today does not deem it an unworthy endeavor. If this was the modus operandi of the day, we would still be gathering around Stonehenge dressed in pelts wolf-fang necklaces.

Aug 3 2012:
Hello again Jan-Bernd Pauli:>)
I LOVE the way you addressed this topic with honesty, a light heart, and open mind:>) I totally agree with you....I would move into the day with the intent and ability to look at new information:>)

"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly"
(Scottish saying)

Some of the god-fearing folks in the crowd might take a look at this lovely little Scottish saying:>)

It is nice to have you joining our littel and virtual breakfast. So what do you like, virtual tea or coffee? :o)

Well, that's life I guess, that even the finest morning meal shared in between an atheist and an agnostic turnes out heavy on the topic of god due to interruption from outside the table... :o)

So thank you for your friendly support and protection as it is truly appreciated on this treacherous minefield of faith.

The Scots seem to have a true saying for those who believe in angles and beeing an romantic agnostic, I prefer a more true spirit of mother nature herself, I go for fairies instead... :o)

But as it is with the bible so it is with all good sayings, they can only make a difference if their meaning get perceived and not just repeated. And repetition never was a sign to me of internalization - on the contrary ... :o)

Yes, it IS indeed unfortunate that some folks cannot see the beauty in an atheist and agnostic having a virtual breakfast discussion, or how that discussion is on topic. Yes, I agree...that is life.

'Tis all a preference of thought my dear man....fairies, angels, leprechauns, little people, etc. They all reside in my gardens, under the protection of Mother Nature:>) All lovely, in my humble perception....just like coffee and tea:>)

Totally agree...any good saying is ONLY as good as our ability to use it for the purpose of making a difference in our "self" and our world:>)

Aug 17 2012:
well, hello, Mr. Bertolt Brecht, nice to meet u at last, provided, u r not already ready to become another one soon. i am not sure what u meant by 'that anything is, and better should be, in continuous flow ...', but, (never mind if it feels irrelevant), as i think, everything that has a start has an end too. and, after the start, till end, it is alright to be in a continuous flow, though reality may not allow one to accept that fact in all environment(s). i hope i could present my point, 'reality' makes people decide between whether to go with the flow or try otherwise. as an example, say, you r swimming in an unknown river and suddenly u realize that there's a waterfall ahead, would u prefer to continue, or, decide to avoid it in time before it's too late?

Aug 18 2012:
ok, as u wish. u r a free man and u can choose to be anyone at anytime, free will in action. no prob from me.

i didn't get your personal mail address yet cause, my yahoo inbox suddenly stopped receiving new mails. though there should be some mails there by now. (it's not that yahoo isn't working, but the fact is that my add is being treated with 'special' care)

so, i guess my gmail add will produce the same result too. so, let's try something here. how about, if i say to u that, i found out (after working 12 years with some US institutions such as CIA and may be even Pentagon) that the 'democracy' US is practicing and 'preaching' all around the world to be the best, is actually based on some superstitious conceptions along with some ' science' that actually supports those 'superstitions'! at this point, i must say that, i don't have anything solid in my hand to prove this but experiences of being involved in the last 2 elections (indirectly though) and already included in the coming one, which, already blocked access to my own sites, cause contents may prove to be to 'sensitive' in nature for the election (there r more in it, but i'm trying to be cautious in a public debate)! well, this can be told in public that my experience tells me that, the blind race/war for power at that level even ignores science, let alone others, though US has the best scientists of the world in their stock. and, suddenly, even those scientists may also be ready to defend that flawed 'democracy'. sad but true.
u don't believe me, right? I can guess that. cause, i experienced it myself, and i can tell u this much that from the beginning of this debate, till now, if you find me to be able to think logically, then u will also believe what i just said in the above para can prove to be logical too (just as a reminder, i'm working with US for the last 12 yrs). and many, many US citizens (including scientists) r also aware of the fact, but they r just defending their country, naturally...

Aug 18 2012:
A long, long time ago I stopped to believe in the value system of western democracies, especially on global scale, and therefore there is not much in terms of political misuse I would have trouble to imagine.

Since the term 'conspiracy theories' has become a common and quickly used argument against critical voices and thinking, one can see in which direction the 'game' has changed. Before this it was named 'investigative journalism', but even without this denigration, the professionalism and independence in this filed is declining.

Science often choses to remain silent in political affairs, as the leash of budgeting and funding is short anyway and often hold and controlled by those in power. So I do not expect much of resistance of those who would risk their careers if they would speak up their true minds.

All domestic and foreign policy is about power, retention of power and national interests and by this and its nature it is vulnerable against corruption, megalomania and questionable intentions.

Different as it is in dictatorships, any sinister political motivation within democracies has to be very clever in hiding its true intention and to sell it for the good of the people instead. Therefore it becomes so difficult for the people to understand the true agenda of their very own countries, as information get more and more shattered, distorted, negated, covered or simply faked.

Isn't it interesting that so called 'free nations' have so much trouble to embrace the idea of websites such as WikiLeaks?

Who ever came about to learn about the true power of information will know what I am pointing at.

The decline of freedom will always come with good intentions and brightly labeled!

For your country one example would be the PATRIOT Act, and for mine there are similar others.

It is on us, the people, not to allow things to go out of control and to finally stand for our democratic beliefs in our very own freedom! This includes our governments and economy.

Aug 19 2012:
ok, before starting this reply, i confirmed that, u r still from germany.
didn't germans got hitler to his position and warred under him till destruction, i must point out it here that, some tried to kill him too while the war was raging. well, germany is considered to be a western nation too, by us from BD. so, r u confident on your political system and democracy, though, i believe, it is different to some extent than US democracy!
'conspiracy theories' were used against moon landing too. so, 'conspiracy theory' is not what i prefer to choose to use here. and about journalism, i prefer the term 'yellow journalism' over all others.
a scientist, who finds him/her in such 'paradox', should device a way out, they r scientists anyway, and they know how to do that. it is matter of intention only. in US, politics allow budget for scientific research and politicians use those research results to keep them silent -- 'paradox', isn't it! well, its a matter of intention again.
>> All domestic and foreign policy is about power, retention of power and national interests... it has been such from the beginning, resulting brit rule, two world wars, cold war days, and now as i see "a US style colonialism"... well i guess it will continue as it is as long as.....
monarchy, democracy or dictatorship, they're producing the same results, over and over again -- a blind pursuit for world domination. US democracy invented WMD when they needed oil, and they found allies too. and still US is acting with allies to decide who can develop a nuke and who can't... 'freedom', defined as suitable.
i won't discuss bd here, cause, it's a totally different story from outside and from inside. as an example, a murder will usually get investigated in your country, but, in bd, is is very easy to overlook/bury even murder of a 'journalist family' without any investigation at all.

science should lead people to that point. so, is there any point of pursuing science knowing what is going to be the result!